update_conversation_notes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing notes, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though what it communicates is limited in scope.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should provide more context about the mutation behavior and parameter usage given the lack of annotation coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage for 4 parameters, the description provides no additional semantic information about what 'product_slug', 'conversation_id', 'notes', or 'client_id' represent or how they should be used. The description mentions 'product scope' which relates to 'product_slug', but doesn't explain what format it expects or where to find valid values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update notes') and resource ('for a CRM conversation in a product scope'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_conversion_notes' or 'upsert_conversation_note', which appear to have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_conversion_notes' or 'upsert_conversation_note'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for selecting this specific update method over other similar tools in the server.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.